CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 7 janvier 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s25D4CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sA513A796 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:16pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF2492270 { width:14.36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE4C86F0B { width:12.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6CDEDE67 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.25pt; text-align:justify } .s2168BDE6 { width:5.25pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s74863E12 { width:7.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA2100AF { width:7.26pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1E2B8B97 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8C6C4B { width:7.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48941B3D { width:6.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC2E086EB { width:36.89pt; display:inline-block } .s543FF837 { width:151.1pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION CASE OF A.R.E. v. GREECE (Application no. 15783/21)   JUDGMENT   Art 3 • Expulsion • Systematic practice of “pushbacks” to Türkiye from Evros region in Greece established • Turkish applicant’s sufficiently convincing allegations of “pushback” established beyond reasonable doubt • Removal without examining alleged risk of ill-treatment or application for international protection • Art   13 (+   Art   3) • No effective remedy Art 5 § 1 • Lawful arrest or detention • Informal detention of applicant prior to “pushback” without any legal basis • Art   5 §   2 • No information on reasons for arrest • Art   5 §   4 • No remedy by which to have lawfulness of detention reviewed Art 3 (substantive) • Expulsion • Inhuman or degrading treatment • Art   2 (substantive) • Life • Applicant’s factual allegations regarding “pushback” across Evros River largely consistent with modus operandi described in relevant reports from national and international institutions • Alleged violations not provable beyond reasonable doubt for lack of clear and concordant evidence • Art   13 (+ Art   2 and Art   3) • No effective remedy Art 41 • Exceptional circumstances calling for award of just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage, notwithstanding belated nature of claim under that head, having regard to seriousness of violations found and complete unavailability of reparation at domestic level   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court .   STRASBOURG 7 January 2025 FINAL   30/06/2025   This judgment became final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of A.R.E. v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Peeter Roosma, President ,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Jolien Schukking,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Darian Pavli,   Andreas Zünd , Judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 January 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the applicant’s alleged “pushback” from Greece to Türkiye. The applicant relied on Articles   2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention. PROCEDURE 2.     The case originated in an application (no.   15783/21) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national,   Ms   A.R.E. (“the applicant”), on 19   March 2021. 3 .     The applicant was born in 1992 and lives in Türkiye. She was represented by Ms   M.   Papamina, Ms.   K.   Prountzou, Mr   A.   Konstantinou, Ms   Z.   Katsigianni, Ms   C.   Kavvadia, Ms   E.   Koutsouraki and Mr   V.   Papadopoulos, lawyers practising in Athens. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent,   Ms   N.   Marioli, and her delegates Mr   K.   Georgiadis, Legal Counsellor at the State Legal Council, Mr   D.   Kalogiros, Ms   S.   Trekli and Ms   Z.   Chatzipavlou, Advisers at the State Legal Council, and Ms   A.   Magrippi, Legal Assistant at the State Legal Council. 4 .     The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court, pursuant to Rule   52   §   1 of the Rules of Court. On 2   December 2021 it was communicated to the respondent Government. The Government and the applicant each made written submissions on the admissibility and merits of the case. 5 .     Upon the leave granted by the President of the Chamber, third-party comments were also received from the following entities: the Border Violence Monitoring Network; the AIRE Centre, jointly with the Dutch Council for Refugees and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles; the European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights, jointly with the European Democratic Lawyers, the Association of Lawyers for Freedom and the Progressive Lawyers’ Association; and, lastly, the Greek Helsinki Monitor. 6 .     On 14   November 2023 the Chamber decided to hold a hearing in the case and to give notice thereof to the Turkish Government. 7 .     On 15   February 2024 the Chamber scheduled the hearing for 4   June 2024. It sent the parties general questions for the hearing and further asked them to reply to specific questions in writing and to provide additional information before the hearing. 8.     Upon invitation by the President of the Chamber, the Greek Ombudsman and the National Human Rights Commission submitted observations in reply to the following question: “Has there been a systematic practice of refoulement of foreign nationals by the Greek authorities to Türkiye at land and sea borders? ” 9 .     On 8   April 2024 the parties’ replies to the specific questions and the requested additional information were received. 10 .     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 4   June 2024.   There appeared before the Court:   (a)     for the Government   Mr   K. Georgiadis, Legal Counsellor at the State Legal Council, Mr   D. Kalogiros, Ms   S. Trekli, Ms   Z. Chatzipavlou, Advisers at the State Legal Council;   (b)     for the applicant   Ms     M. Papamina, lawyer, Coordinator of the Legal Department of the Greek Council for Refugees, Ms     K. Prountzou, Mr     A. Konstantinou, Mr     V. Papadopoulos, Ms     Z. Katsigianni, Ms     C. Kavvadia, advisers.   The Court heard addresses by Ms M.   Papamina, Ms   K.   Prountzou and Mr   A.   Konstantinou, for the applicant, and by Mr   D.   Kalogiros and Ms   S.   Trekli, for the Government, as well as their replies to questions from the judges. THE FACTS THE APPLICANT’S ACCOUNT 11 .     In November   2016, having been accused of being a member of the organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure” (FETÖ/PDY), the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention , where she remained for 28   months . 12 .     On 12   March 2019 she was sentenced to six years and three months’ imprisonment for membership of the FETÖ/PDY   movement. After appealing against her conviction, she was released the same day pending appeal proceedings and on condition that she not leave the country. 13 .     At around 5.30   a.m. on 4   May 2019 she entered Greece by crossing the Evros River from Türkiye with two other Turkish nationals seeking international protection. 14 .     At 5.51   a.m., while still in a wooded area near Nea Vyssa, she contacted her brother using the WhatsApp application, activating the “live location” function which allowed her position to be tracked in real time. Her brother was in Greece at the time, having travelled there in 2018 to seek asylum. 15 .     The applicant sent her brother a photograph of her with the two other Turkish nationals in front of trees in a rural area near Nea Vyssa. 16 .     From 7.30   a.m. to 7.31   a.m. the applicant contacted her brother again to ask him to give her the address of a lawyer in Orestiada. 17 .     At 10.30 a.m. she sent her brother a 12-second video in which she told him, in Turkish, that she feared being unlawfully removed. 18 .     At 10.40   a.m. she sent him a new, 23-second video in which she reiterated her fears. 19 .     At 10.48   a.m. the applicant’s brother sent an email to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Greece, stating as follows (original English): “Dear UN Representatives I am Turkish Political Asylum Seeker and living in Athens On 04   May 2019 around 05:30, 3 Turkish Political Asylum Seeker, one of them my sister crossed the Evros river and came to the Greece. They are very near to Orestiada. They wanted to apply asylum, but they are afraid of to be push back. If they push back to Turkey, her life will be in danger. Please help them Their names ...” 20 .     At 10.55   a.m. the applicant sent an email to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in which she explained as follows (original English): “We as 3 Turkish Political Asylum Seekers, escaped the Erdogan Government persecution and crossed the Evros river and came to the Greece today around 05:30. We are very near to Orestiada. We want to apply asylum, but we are afraid of inhuman behaviours and push back by Greek Security Forces. If we push back to Turkey, our life will be in danger. ” 21 .     At 12.58   p.m. the applicant sent her brother a new, 26-second video and carried on communicating with him. 22 .     At 1.03 p.m. the applicant sent a message to a lawyer, who responded by offering to meet her at the Nea Vyssa Citizens’ Service Centre (“the KEP”). 23 .     At 1.54 p.m. the applicant’s brother sent another email to the UNHRC. 24 .     At 2.25   p.m., while waiting for the lawyer, the applicant sent her brother a photograph of her and her two compatriots standing in front of a sign that read “Nea Vyssa KEP”. 25 .     The lawyer arrived shortly thereafter and took a photograph of the three Turkish nationals sitting on a bench in Nea Vyssa town square. 26 .     A few minutes later the police arrived and arrested the three Turkish nationals. The applicant alleged that the police had refused to allow the lawyer to get into the vehicle with them but had allowed him to follow them in his own car. 27 .     When they arrived at the police station the applicant and her two compatriots requested asylum for the first time. 28 .     Immediately afterwards the police took them to the Orestiada border guard station in Neo Cheimonio. In the applicant’s submission, the police did not allow the lawyer to enter but he took a photograph of the outside of the station from his car and sent it to her brother, informing him that his sister was there. 29 .     The applicant’s position was still being transmitted to her brother via WhatsApp. 30 .     The police officers did not give the three Turkish nationals any information during their transfer. Once they arrived at the border guard station, the applicant reiterated her request for asylum. Together with the two other Turkish nationals, she was unofficially and unlawfully held at the border guard station by two police officers until 7   p.m. After that, the “pushback” of the three Turkish nationals began. 31 .     After a journey of approximately 15-20 minutes in a green van, the police officers transferred the applicant and her two compatriots to an unknown police station which was larger than the one in Neo Cheimonio. All their personal belongings were confiscated, including their bags, shoes, mobile phones and money. 32 .     The applicant submitted that she had injured herself walking on the journey to Greece and was suffering from a sprain. She had been forced to walk barefoot and her injury had worsened to the point where she still suffered from leg pain . 33 .     A different, larger lorry with an awning transported them to an unknown location near the Evros River. A total of 31 people were in the vehicle: the applicant, the two Turkish nationals with whom she had entered Greece, three other Turkish nationals of Kurdish origin, fifteen   Syrians and ten Afghan or Pakistani nationals . 34 .     When the lorry arrived near the bank of the Evros River, the migrants were made to disembark by three individuals wearing balaclavas and camouflage uniforms, who were probably police officers. There were thus five police officers in total . 35 .     When the applicant got out of the lorry, she asked the police: “Where are we going? We are asking for asylum.” A police officer indicated that she was to remain silent by pressing his finger to his lips. Some individuals refused to get out of the lorry, including the Syrians, whereupon the police officers beat them on the head and back. Once everyone had got out, the applicant shouted “asylum” and a police officer replied, in Turkish, “you will see where we will take you”. 36 .     At around 11   p.m. the applicant and the others were put into a small inflatable boat to be sent back to Türkiye . Since the boat was too small to hold 31 people, it made several crossings to take all of them back to Türkiye. 37 .     They thus arrived on the Turkish shore very late at night and waited there until dawn. As the Syrians had lit a fire, the applicant tried to hide in the reeds with the two Turkish nationals who had accompanied her to Greece. 38 .     The Turkish gendarmerie arrived on the scene and arrested the other 28 members of the group. The applicant then heard one of the Turkish gendarmes say that “the opposite side [had] told [them] that there were 31 [of them]” and they began searching for the missing individuals. The applicant and her two compatriots were discovered and arrested on   5   May 2019. The applicant was taken to Edirne Prison the same day and was transferred to Gebze Prison on 20   May 2019. 39 .     The applicant added that her brother had stopped seeing her status as “connected” on the WhatsApp application as of 6.52   p.m. on 4   May 2019. The same day, he took a flight from Athens to Alexandroupolis and arrived in Neo Cheimonio at approximately 8.30 p.m., accompanied by the lawyer, N.O. The police told them that there was no one there and asked them to leave. At 8   a.m. the following day, on 5   May 2019, the applicant’s brother went once more, alone, to the border guard station in Neo Cheimonio. The police officers advised him to check with the Orestiada police station or the Fylakio Reception and Identification Centre, which he did, to no avail. Shortly afterwards, his other sister, who was in Türkiye, informed him that the applicant had been arrested in that country and was being held in detention there. On 6   May 2019 the wives of the Turkish nationals who had accompanied the applicant contacted her brother and confirmed the information he had been given, as their husbands had also been arrested and imprisoned. THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 40.     On 18   June 2019 the Greek Council for Refugees filed a complaint on behalf of the applicant with the Athens public prosecutor, together with a request that the case file be transferred to the public prosecutor at the Orestiada Court of First Instance, alleging abuse of power, breach of duty, unlawful detention, life-endangerment, grievous bodily harm, destruction of property, torture and other offences against human dignity. 41 .     On 13   December 2019, in decision no.   51/2019, the public prosecutor at the Orestiada Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence. He considered that the examination and assessment of the content of the complaint, the sworn statement given by a police officer and the documents in the case file had not yielded sufficient evidence of the commission of a criminal offence by an officer of the Orestiada border guard station or of the Orestiada Police Directorate. The prosecutor further took the view that no other evidence gathered in the course of the preliminary investigation corroborated the accusations against the officers of those entities and that there was therefore no evidence to substantiate the applicant’s allegations. The prosecutor added that the applicant had not relied on anyone else’s testimony in her compliant and that her allegations could not be substantiated on the basis of the documents she had submitted and were, moreover, contradicted by the sworn statement of the chief of the Orestiada border guard station, G.T., and by the material in the case file. 42 .     On 10   February 2020 the applicant appealed against decision no.   51/2019 to the public prosecutor at the Thrace Court of Appeal. She complained that the evidence she had submitted had not been assessed and that her brother, the lawyer N.O. and the Turkish journalist, Z.K., had not been summoned as witnesses . 43 .     On 3   March 2020 the public prosecutor at the Thrace Court of Appeal ordered that the preliminary investigation be continued and, in particular, that the three witnesses identified by the applicant be examined, along with all the police officers who had been on duty at the border guard station on the date alleged. Accordingly, on 11   March 2020 the prosecutor at the Orestiada Court of First Instance instructed the Orestiada investigation judge to take statements from those individuals. 44 .     In his sworn statement recorded on 18   March 2020 the lawyer N.O. stated as follows: “On 4   May 2019 I received a call from an unknown number, which I did not answer. In a text message sent to this number I asked who it was and at 10.09   a.m. I received a reply [stating] that they were three Turkish asylum-seekers who had entered Greece unlawfully [via] a border region which they did not specify, and that they were hiding in a rural area near the village of Nea Vyssa. At the same time, A.E.’s brother, I., called me and told me that his sister was near Nea Vyssa with two other Turks and that they wished to file an asylum application with the authorities, asking me to provide them with legal advice. Later, I went to Nea Vyssa, where the three Turks were waiting in the central square of the village for the authorities to arrest them (at roughly 2.40 p.m.), and at the same time A.’s brother informed me that he was coming to Orestiada from Athens to meet his sister. [I contacted] the Greek authorities who, as I had been informed by A.’s brother, had already been notified by means of emails and [telephone] calls both from him and from other associations. At around 4.15   p.m., I received A.’s last message by means of an internet tracking app, telling me she was at the border guard station in Cheimonio. I went there a few minutes later and asked whether the three Turks were there or whether they had been arrested, and I received a negative reply from the authorities. In the afternoon, A.’s brother arrived in the area and I met him at around 10   p.m. outside the border guard station in Cheimonio, where he too received a negative reply as to his sister’s presence there. The following day, at around 12.38   p.m. on 5 May 2019, A.’s brother sent me a message to inform me that his sister and the two other Turks had been arrested in Türkiye in the [Edirne] region. He subsequently told me that their trial had taken place in Türkiye at 1.20   p.m. on 6   May 2019 and that they had all been taken to prison.” 45 .     In reply to a question concerning the contact details of the Turkish journalist Z.K., N.O. stated that he had contacted him on the morning of the interview and gave the investigation judge his address and telephone number. 46 .     When further questioned as to the contact details of the applicant’s brother, N.O. replied that he had also contacted him on the morning of the interview and that the brother had explained that he no longer lived in Greece, had applied for asylum in another country and would not be able to come back in a timely manner. N.O. added that the applicant’s brother wished to make himself available to the Greek authorities. 47 .     In his sworn statement of 6   June 2020 the Turkish journalist Z.K., who was assisted by an interpreter while giving his testimony, stated as follows: “On 4   May 2019, at around 11 a.m., I.E. called me via WhatsApp and told me that his sister A.E. had entered Greece with two other individuals. He also told me that they were afraid to report to the police because he had read on Twitter that there were pushbacks from Greece to Türkiye. I. also told me that his sister and the other two individuals, T.N. and K.Y., had crossed the Evros River into Greece in order to apply for asylum. I asked for A.’s telephone number so that I could gather information and find out where they were. After that, I contacted her, told her who I was and asked her to send me her current location from her mobile phone. She sent me her position and I saw that she was indeed in Greece, near Nea Vyssa. A. told me that she was terribly afraid of being sent back to Türkiye because she was accused of being a member of Fethullah Gülen’s organisation, the FETÖ. Subsequently, I contacted the lawyer N.O. [because] I knew that he handled cases of this kind, and I learned that he was in the Nea Vyssa area and that he was going to help A. and the other two with the asylum procedure. N.O. was tracking them remotely and he took a picture of them in a park in Nea Vyssa and sent it to I. and to me. I. also sent me another picture taken outside the Nea Vyssa KEP, showing the three [next to a] KEP sign. I posted that photo on Twitter. N.O. had also sent the me the first photo. While the three Turks were in Nea Vyssa waiting for the Greek authorities in order to apply for asylum, the police arrived and took them to the Cheimonio police station. N.O. informed me that he was following the police vehicle in his own car and I could see their position on my mobile phone. Everything [that I have just said] is what N.O. told me, but I have no knowledge of his own actions and, in particular, [I don’t know] whether he asked the Greek police what was going on. A.’s brother, I., went to the Cheimonio police station and was told she was not there. On 5   May 2019 I was informed that A. and her two friends had been arrested in the [Edirne] region and that, as I. informed me, they had been taken to prison, [where they are still] today. In March 2020 I did an interview with A. and posted it. In the interview she recounts the facts in detail.” 48 .     On 23   September 2020, in decision no.   41/2020, the public prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s case for lack of evidence. He took the view that no evidence had been adduced in the preliminary and additional investigations to substantiate the accusations against the police officers. In particular, he submitted that no further evidence had emerged from the statements of the journalist Z.K. and the lawyer N.O. taken on 6   June 2020 and 18   March 2020, respectively. He added, in this connection, that the lawyer had had a telephone conversation with the complainant’s brother, who had not been able to testify because he had left Greece, where he had initially come to apply for asylum, and was now seeking asylum in another country. The prosecutor further observed that the statements given by the chief of the Orestiada border guard station, G.T., and by police officers D.S. and D.M. had clarified that, when an alien was found by patrols from the Orestiada Police Directorate, he or she was taken to their station for verification of the lawfulness of his or her entry and stay in the country and a criminal file was subsequently opened, where appropriate. The prosecutor further noted that “no arrest of a person with the same name as the applicant [had been] made, a fact which [was] not contradicted by the aforementioned testimony of the journalist and the lawyer”. Moreover, the allegations had not been proved “since the Greek police, having a specific remit and clear orders to open a case and submit it to the competent prosecuting authorities, never [carried out] such ‘pushbacks’ to Türkiye”. The public prosecutor further noted that persons arrested by the police very frequently applied for asylum and that “it [was] therefore clear that this would also have been the case for the complainant if she had been detected and arrested on Greek territory”. He concluded that it was not apparent from the case file that the complainant had been subjected to an unlawful “pushback” to Türkiye. THE PARTIES’ INITIAL SUBMISSIONS The Government 49.     The Government firmly denied all the applicant’s allegations. 50 .     In their view, in her complaint of 18   June 2019, she had submitted in evidence only a few photographs of herself in the company of other individuals, without proof of the date and time when they had been taken, and private messages between her and her brother or her lawyers. 51 .     The Government further submitted that there were serious gaps and inconsistencies in the applicant’s account. In particular, in his testimony, N.O. had not confirmed that he had actually met the applicant; nor had he testified that he had witnessed her arrest by police officers. 52 .     As to Z.K.’s testimony, the Government observed that he had not met the applicant and that he could never have been certain that the GPS signal he was receiving had actually come from her mobile phone, or that the phone had been in her possession at all times. In the Government’s view, this signal could have been emitted by any mobile phone carried by anyone. The Government further alleged that Z.K. had not witnessed any of the incidents complained of but had merely related what the applicant’s brother and the lawyer N.O. had told him. They added that N.O. had not corroborated Z.K.’s statements to the effect that N.O. had informed him that the three Turkish nationals had been taken to the border guard station in Neo Cheimonio and that he had followed the police car. 53 .     Moreover, the applicant’s brother, who was cited as a key witness in the application, had never gone to the Greek judicial authorities of his own volition to give evidence during the preliminary investigation, appealing to the fact that he was living as an asylum-seeker in another country but failing to specify his whereabouts. 54 .     The Government further alleged that the applicant had not reported to the national authorities, adding that no witness had testified to the contrary, and that she had not been held on Greek territory or sent back to Türkiye. In this connection, they submitted that there was no witness testimony or evidence in support of the applicant’s version of events. 55 .     The Government argued, in particular, that the photographs submitted by the applicant in support of her allegations could have been taken at any time, including during a previous trip to Greece. 56 .     The Government submitted that, following Lighthouse Reports’ allegations of “pushbacks” of migrants by the Greek authorities, the National Transparency Authority, which was an independent body, had conducted an investigation into the operational activities of the domestic bodies responsible for monitoring sea and land borders and had found, in its published investigation report   no.   OM   3/4, that no evidence of such pushbacks had come to light. 57 .     In the Government’s view, the incidents described in the application had never happened and did not reflect the conduct and practices of the border authorities. They concluded that the applicant had not entered Greece from Türkiye on the dates alleged, had not been held by State agents and had not been “pushed back” to Türkiye. 58 .     In their additional observations, the Government submitted that the applicant, with whom lay the full burden of proving her allegations, had failed to prove the truth of her claims. In particular, the applicant had not provided an accurate list of the documents and other material she had submitted to the domestic criminal-law authorities by producing an official receipt drawn up by the prosecutor’s office. They inferred from this that her claims as to what had actually been brought to the prosecutor’s attention and, more importantly, what had been dismissed and/or allegedly disregarded by him, were not supported by any evidence. 59 .     The Government argued, moreover, that the documents attached to the application form had been brought to their attention for the first time when the application in question had been communicated to them. Furthermore, those documents included photographs the originals of which had not been provided to them and, consequently, could not be technically examined to determine whether they were authentic and unedited. The Government thus completely denied the validity and probative value of all the evidence relied upon. 60 .     Furthermore, the Government submitted that the applicant had not proved that her lawyer had filed two requests for mutual legal assistance to obtain her brother’s testimony. 61 .     They also pointed out that they had been asked merely to submit arguments on the facts alleged and by no means to clarify whether the applicant had been to Greece at any other time in her life. It was for the applicant alone to prove the exact time at which the photographs submitted to the Court had been taken and the place of their taking . 62 .     The Government submitted that all the incidents alleged by the applicant were completely unsubstantiated. In their view, the factual analysis they had given was fully borne out by official documents the content of which was indisputable and the applicant’s submission that they had not provided any concrete evidence establishing that she had never been arrested and “pushed back” was therefore unjustified. Moreover, she had not indicated what evidence they might have produced in order to prove that she had never been arrested or “pushed back”. 63 .     Lastly, the Government alleged that the applicant referred only to reports that were neither commonly taken into account by the national or European Union (EU) authorities, nor upheld by national and/or international courts, which demonstrated perfectly that the present application was an ill-founded actio popularis . They were also dismissive of the content of this type of material. The applicant 64 .     The applicant submitted that, contrary to the Government’s submissions, the complaint she had lodged on 18   June 2019 had comprised eight sets of printed annexes accompanied by a CD-ROM containing all the photographs and videos relating to the case and that this material had thus been made available to the authorities, who could perfectly well have assessed its authenticity. 65 .     She further explained that on 15   November 2019 she had submitted additional observations to the prosecutor at the court of first instance, including the decision delivered against her by the İzmir Criminal Court on 6   May 2019, following her “pushback”, which stated as follows: she had been sentenced to six years and three months’ imprisonment from 12   March 2019 onwards and had breached the prohibition on leaving the country and fled to Greece, whence she had been sent back to Türkiye. The applicant added that the decision had been based on a report by the Uzunköprü district prosecutor dated 5   May 2019 . 66 .     The applicant submitted that she had provided this evidence to both the Greek authorities and the Court. 67 .     As to the Government’s allegations that they had not been provided with the originals of the photographs and videos in question, the applicant argued that the authorities had had access to the criminal case file, which had included the original documents. The applicant further submitted that the Government’s argument that the photographs submitted could have been taken during an earlier trip to Greece contradicted their submission that she had never been to Greece. She added, in this connection, that the messages posted on social media on the date alleged supported her claim that the photographs had been taken the same day in order make her presence in Greece publicly known on account of her fear of being sent back to Türkiye. 68 .     The applicant submitted that all the evidence described above were also corroborated by the testimony of N.O., a lawyer who had met her and her two compatriots in Nea Vyssa on 4   May 2019, and by that of the journalist Z.K., with whom she, her brother and the lawyer N.O. had spoken by telephone the same day. She submitted that the lawyer N.O. had clearly stated that she had been one of the three individuals arrested and that he had been an eyewitness to their arrest. The fact that N.O. had not mentioned that he had followed the police vehicle in his own car – unlike the journalist Z.K., who had said as much in his statement, citing the lawyer as his source – did not alter that fact. 69 .     As to the absence of any statement from her brother, the applicant pointed out that her lawyer had sent his address to the judicial authorities on two occasions (9   March 2020 and 17   June 2020), as he had been living in Sweden as an asylum-seeker, and that, pointing to the travel restrictions imposed on account of COVID-19 and a delay in obtaining travel documents in Sweden, she had requested additional time for him to appear and give evidence. On that occasion, her lawyer had also filed a request for the activation of the mutual legal assistance procedure, to which the competent authorities had not responded. 70 .     Furthermore, the applicant submitted that the conclusion reached by the public prosecutor at the Thrace Court of Appeal completely disregarded the simple wording of the witness statements adduced and she therefore considered it to be totally arbitrary. Moreover, the applicant complained that the prosecutor had given disproportionate weight to the testimony of the police officers, namely G.T., the chief of the Orestiada border guard station, and officers D.T. and D.B., explaining that he had relied on their statements to conclude that it should be presumed that the legal procedure for the registration of anyone entering Greek territory had been followed in the present case, even though the officers in question had been potential suspects in connection with the acts alleged by her. Furthermore, the prosecutor’s conclusion that anyone who was arrested was normally subjected to the legal procedure was contradicted by reliable and credible findings by international organisations, human rights monitoring bodies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the media concerning systematic “pushbacks” effected in the same period, in particular in the Evros region. 71 .     Lastly, the applicant pointed out that she had been arrested on her return to Türkiye and had initially been held in Edirne Prison for fifteen days, from 5 to 20   May 2019, before being transferred to Gebze F-Type High-Security Prison, where she had remained until 14   October 2021. She had been released on that date upon completion of her prison sentence of six years and three months for alleged membership of the “FETÖ/PDY” movement . THE PARTIES’ REPLIES TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS PUT TO THEM IN PREPARATION FOR THE HEARING 72 .     The Court observes that, in view of the complete divergence between the parties’ submissions as to the facts in the present case, it decided to have them reply in writing to a number of specific questions for the hearing. The absence of testimony from the applicant’s brother 73 .     The Government submitted that the prosecutor at the Thrace Court of Appeal had believed that the applicant’s brother was in Greece, where he had filed an asylum application, and had accordingly ordered that he be heard as a witness. They submitted that when the public prosecutor had learned that the applicant was not in Greece, he had apparently considered that there was no need for him to testify and that it was therefore unnecessary to request legal assistance for that purpose, given that he already had evidence at his disposal, including the statements of N.O. and Z.K. in particular, in which extensive reference was made to the alleged involvement of the applicant’s brother in the events about which he was to have testified. 74 .     The applicant submitted that her lawyer had twice – on 1   March and 17   June 2020 – requested that mutual legal assistance be activated with the Swedish authorities to enable her brother to give evidence. She provided the Court with copies of those requests, which had allegedly been filed with the office of the Orestiada investigation judge, explaining that they had been included in the criminal case file compiled by the prosecutor at the Thrace Court of Appeal. She added that the requests in question had gone unanswered and that her brother had never been asked to give evidence. She clarified, moreover, that her brother had been an asylum-seeker in Greece at the time of the incident, that he had been living in Athens since 2018 and that he had remained in the country until July 2019, noting, in this connection, that he had never been asked to testify as a witness during the time that he had been present in Greece. The applicant also pointed out that decision no.   41/2020 (see paragraph   48 above) merely stated that it had not been possible to interview her brother because he was an asylum-seeker in another country and was no longer in Greece, without mentioning the requests made by her lawyer on 19 March and 17 June 2020. The question as to who informed the police of the applicant’s presence in Nea Vyssa 75 .     The Government submitted that it could be seen from the lawyer N.O.’s sworn statement of 18   March 2020 that the Greek authorities had been informed of the applicant’s alleged presence in Greece by the lawyer himself, her brother and various organisations, through emails and telephone calls. They further alleged that in an additional statement of 5   March 2024 (see paragraph   79 below) N.O. had testified that the Greek authorities had also been informed of her presence by the applicant herself. Moreover, according to the sworn statement given by the journalist Z.K. on 6   June 2020, the applicant’s brother had told him that the applicant was afraid to go to the police because she had seen Twitter messages about “pushbacks” from Greece to Türkiye. The Government further referred to the statements made by the applicant and her two companions at the Meriç police station, noting the following, in particular: (a) K.Y. had stated: “After walking for a while we called the lawyer of the refugees’ association. Said lawyer called the police. Subsequently we entered the police zone and the Police took us”; (b) T.N. had provided the following information: “In Greece we called the lawyer handling cases of refugees. He told us to call the police and make a request for asylum”; (c) the applicant had stated as follows: “We called the Greek police to come and take us”. 76 .     In the Government’s view, it followed from the above that the applicant and her two companions had given conflicting accounts of the person or persons who had informed the police of their alleged presence in Greece. They pointed out, in particular, that the applicant had stated that she, K.Y. and T.N. had been the ones to inform the police, whereas K.Y. had testified that it had been the lawyer N.O. who had called them, while N.O. had stated that all of them – namely he himself, the applicant, the two individuals accompanying her and the applicant’s brother – had contacted the police, despite the applicant’s fears of being “pushed back”. Lastly, the Government added that no relevant information on this point was included in the application or in the domestic criminal complaint . 77 .     The applicant argued that it was clear from the content of N.O.’s two statements that the above question had not been put to him by the investigation judges who had examined him. In this connection, she submitted that if such a question had been put to the witness, an affirmative or negative reply would necessarily have been included in the transcript of his statements. Nevertheless, she submitted that the available documents and evidence all pointed to the fact that the police had been informed of her presence in the central square of Nea Vyssa by the lawyer N.O., referring in this regard to the lawyer’s exchange of messages with her brother on WhatsApp, from which it could be inferred that N.O. had called the police twice on 4   May 2019, namely at 2.44   p.m. and 3.20   p.m. 78 .     The applicant added that the fact that N.O. had called the police was corroborated by excerpts from her brother’s personal account of the events, as submitted to the UNHCR on 15 May 2019, which were contained in a document from the UNHCR Representation in Greece dated 8   April 2024 which she had submitted to the Court. In any event, her presence and that of the two other Turkish citizens would not have gone unnoticed in a small village such as Nea Vyssa and her brother I.E. had therefore informed the lawyers and the UNHCR early in the morning of her presence in that village. The testimony of the lawyer N.O. 79 .     The Court observes that, in reply to certain specific questions concerning the role played by lawyer N.O. on the day of the alleged incident, the Government submitted to the Court an additional sworn statement by the lawyer N.O., who had been summoned once more by the Orestiada public prosecutor’s office for that purpose. In his statement, taken on 5   March 2024, N.O. testified as follows: “In May 2019, [someone with] a Turkish telephone number called me. I did not answer but sent a message asking who it was. [The person] answered that she was a Turkish national, that her name was [A.R.E.] and that she had entered Greece unlawfully from Türkiye. She sent me her position; she was near Vyssa. While I was speaking with   [A.], her brother, whom I did not know at the time,