CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 5 mai 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; 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 } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEB972D3E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s119C1441 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { 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-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s507990D1 { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CB9BE2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s27210F8D { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-transform:uppercase } .s9804041A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6F863F49 { width:6.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .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 } .sF900A6B { width:28.55pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sED1F0299 { width:141.42pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF Z.A. AND K.S. v. TÜRKİYE (Application no. 36449/17)       JUDGMENT   Art 3 (substantive) • Conditions of detention of the first applicant at a reception and accommodation centre amounting to degrading treatment Art 5 § 1 • Deprivation of liberty of the first applicant • Initial detention not in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law • Detention following judicial release order arbitrary   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 5 May 2026     This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Z.A. and K.S. v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Saadet Yüksel,   Jovan Ilievski,   Péter Paczolay,   Stéphane Pisani,   Juha Lavapuro,   Hugh Mercer , judges , and Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   36449/17) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Kyrgyzstani national, Mr Z.A., and a Russian national, Mr K.S. (“the applicants”), on 17   April 2017; the decision to give notice to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Article 3 and Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 4, 5 as well as Article   13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the decision not to give notice of the present application to the Russian Federation having regard to the Court’s findings in I v.   Sweden (no.   61204/09, §§   40 ‑ 46, 5 September 2013) and A.B. and Others v.   France (no.   11593/12, § 5, 12 July 2016); the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 24 March 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness and conditions of the applicants’ detention in various facilities for periods of approximately five and four months respectively in the context of immigration proceedings. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants, Mr Z.A. (“the first applicant”) and Mr K.S. (“the second applicant”) are Kyrgyzstani and Russian nationals, who were born in 1973 and 1988 and live in Bilecik and Yalova respectively. They were represented by Mr A. Yılmaz, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent at the time, Mr   Hacı   Ali Açıkgül, former Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye. 4 .     The facts of the case, as they appear from the parties’ submissions and the findings made by the Constitutional Court in its decision of 22   September 2016 (see paragraphs 22-23 below), may be summarised as follows.         THE first applicant’s (Mr Z.A.) ENTRY INTO türkİye AND HIS SUBSEQUENT DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY 5.     The first applicant left Tajikistan because of an alleged risk of persecution on account of his religious and political opinions and subsequently moved to Türkiye. 6 .     On 7 April 2014, whilst accompanying a Syrian national receiving medical treatment at a hospital in Sakarya, the first applicant was arrested for not being in possession of valid identification documents. He was subsequently transferred to the Foreigners’ Department at the Sakarya police headquarters ( Yabancılar Şube Müdürlüğü ) by the police authorities. 7 .     On 8 April 2014 the first applicant lodged an application for international protection with the competent authorities. A travel permit, valid until 15 April 2014, was issued to him to facilitate the completion of registration procedures with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”), as was the required procedure at the material time. He was released on the same date. 8.     On 14 April 2014, prior to the expiry of the above-mentioned travel permit, the first applicant reapplied with the Sakarya police headquarters, submitting documentation pertaining to his application to the UNHCR. Upon that submission, the first applicant was taken into custody on account of existing entry bans imposed against him. 9 .     During the period from 14 April 2014 to 17 April 2014 the first applicant was held at the premises of the Sakarya police headquarters pending his relocation to a removal centre. On 17 April 2014 he was transferred to the Kocaeli Foreigners’ Removal Centre (“the Kocaeli Removal Centre”). On 18   April 2014 an administrative detention order issued by Kocaeli governor’s office was served on the first applicant. 10.     On an unspecified date the first applicant lodged a second application for international protection. On 13 May 2014 he was informed that his request had been refused by the Directorate General of Migration Management. The first applicant objected to that decision. 11 .     On an unspecified date in May 2014, but no later than 13 May 2014, the first applicant was transferred to the Adana Accommodation and Reception Centre. 12 .     On an unspecified date, the first applicant lodged an objection against his detention with the Adana Magistrate’s Court. On 25 July 2014 the court granted the objection and ordered his release on the grounds that no extension order had been issued for the continuation of his administrative detention. 13 .     On 22 August 2014 the first applicant was taken to Bilecik and released on the following day.       The second applicant’s (Mr K.S.) ENTRY INTO türkİye AND HIS SUBSEQUENT DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY 14.     The second applicant left Russia because of an alleged risk of persecution on account of his religious and political opinions and is allegedly wanted by Russian security forces. 15 .     On 6 March 2014 the second applicant presented himself at the Yalova police headquarters to apply for a residence permit. He was arrested following the discovery of records indicating that an entry ban had been imposed against him. Subsequently, he was placed under administrative detention in the Yalova police headquarters. 16.     On 14 March 2014 the second applicant lodged an application for international protection. That request was rejected by the Yalova governor’s office on 28 March 2014. The second applicant appealed against that decision. His appeal was also rejected. He subsequently instituted annulment proceedings before the administrative courts against the final decision. 17 .     On 15 May 2014 the second applicant was transferred to the Adana Accommodation and Reception Centre. 18.     On 11 June 2014 the second applicant lodged an application for release with the Yalova Magistrate’s Court. In a decision dated 18   June 2014, that court held that there was no need to give a ruling ( karar verilmesine yer olmadığına ), citing the termination of the second applicant’s administrative detention. Subsequently, he lodged a fresh application for release, this time with the Adana Magistrate’s Court, which rejected it on 27   June 2014 on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Following an objection by the second applicant, that decision was reversed, and his release was ordered on 31   July 2014. 19 .     On 22 August 2014 the second applicant was taken to Çankırı and released on the following day.     Proceedings before the Constitutional Court 20 .     The applicants jointly lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court on 22 September 2014. 21 .     In his application to the Constitutional Court, the first applicant provided an account of his detention and appended the documents in his possession related to his asylum request and the administrative procedures at the various facilities in which he was detained. He complained, in substance, of the inadequate conditions of his detention at the Sakarya police headquarters, the Kocaeli Removal Centre (see paragraph   9 above) and the Adana Foreigners’ Reception and Accommodation Centre (“the Adana Reception and Accommodation Centre” – see paragraph 11 above). The second applicant likewise stated that he had been detained in allegedly inhuman and degrading conditions at the Yalova police headquarters and the Adana Reception and Accommodation Centre (see paragraphs 15 and 17 above). Both applicants further contended that they did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy by which to lodge a complaint concerning the above-mentioned conditions of detention. Both applicants additionally asserted that their administrative detention had been unlawful, complaining that they had not been promptly informed of the reasons for their detention, that their right to have the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty reviewed speedily by a court had been violated and that they lacked an effective and enforceable right to compensation for their allegedly unlawful detention. 22 .     On 22 September 2016 the Constitutional Court delivered its decision in the applicants’ case.    The first applicant 23 .     The first applicant’s complaints were found to be inadmissible on account of an abuse of the right of individual application. The relevant parts of the Constitutional Court’s decision read as follows: “ A. The Facts 46. ... [The] applicant was transferred to the Adana Foreigners’ Reception and Accommodation Centre on an unspecified date in May 2014 (and no later than 13   May 2014). ... B. The Court’s Assessment ... 84. The applicant submitted that he had been assigned Sakarya as his compulsory place of residence by the Ministry of Interior on account of his status as an asylum-seeker, and that he had reported to the Foreigners’ Directorate on a weekly basis as required. He alleged that on 7 May 2014, when he had arrived at the police station for the purposes of signing and obtaining a residence permit, he had been taken into detention without any justification being provided. He further stated that after an initial period of thirteen days’ detention at the Sakarya police headquarters, he had been held at the Kocaeli police headquarters for one month, following which he had been transferred to the Adana Foreigners’ Reception and Accommodation Centre. He contended that during those periods of detention at the Sakarya and Kocaeli police headquarters, he had been denied access to open air. 85. The Constitutional Court, however, after examining the letter from the Sakarya police headquarters dated 7 March 2016, observes that law-enforcement officers handed over the applicant to the Foreigners’ Directorate on 7 April 2014 for administrative procedures. This occurred after it had been established that the applicant was not in possession of any identification documents or a passport whilst accompanying a Syrian national ... at a hospital in Sakarya. The applicant had lodged an asylum application on 8 April 2014, whereupon a travel permit, valid from 8   April 2014 to 15 April 2014, had been issued to him to enable his registration procedures with the UNHCR. He was released on the same day, 8 April 2014. On 14   April 2014, prior to the expiry of the above-mentioned travel permit, the applicant presented himself again at the Sakarya police headquarters and submitted documentation pertaining to his UNHCR application. At that juncture, the applicant was detained on account of entry restrictions imposed against him. [Subsequently], the General Directorate of Migration Management ... requested his transfer to the Kocaeli Removal Centre. Consequently, the applicant was accommodated as a ‘guest’ in the Sakarya police headquarters between 14 April 2014 and 17 April 2014, and was subsequently transferred to the Kocaeli Removal Centre on 17 April 2014. 86. The Constitutional Court observes that, as demonstrated by these findings, the events did not transpire in the manner presented by the applicant. It finds that the applicant concealed the fact that the primary reason for his initial contact with the Foreigners’ Directorate had been his failure to produce an identity card or passport at the outset of the events, and that he, furthermore, misrepresented the timeline of the events. Moreover, while the applicant asserted a detention period of thirteen days at the Sakarya police headquarters, it has been established that this period amounted, in fact, to approximately three days in total. 87. The Constitutional Court considers that the above-mentioned incomplete and misleading information, which has a direct impact on the individual application and came to light only following the information submitted by the authorities, cannot be regarded as an excusable error or as a consequence of the applicant’s efforts to seek redress. Such conduct on the part of the applicant falls outside the legitimate exercise of the right of individual application and constitutes an abuse of that right. 88. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Constitutional Court concludes that the application must be declared inadmissible on account of the abuse of the right of application. 89. Furthermore, on account of [this finding], the Constitutional Court, decides to impose a disciplinary fine of 500 Turkish liras on the applicant ...”    The second applicant 24 .     The second applicant’s complaints concerning the conditions of his detention at the Yalova police headquarters were declared manifestly ill ‑ founded. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows: “... 98. The applicant failed to provide any specific details concerning the conditions of his detention at the Yalova police headquarters ... where he alleged he had been held between 6 March 2014 and 14 May 2014. In his application, he merely stated that ‘he had been subjected to physical conditions similar to those which had been previously described with regard to the other detention centres’. Rather than describing the specific hardships or deprivations he had allegedly endured at the facility in question, the applicant made general references to physical conditions in other locations without providing a specific account of his own circumstances. This lack of specificity significantly hindered the examination of this part of his individual application. Consequently, the court concludes that the applicant, having failed to provide sufficient explanations or evidence to substantiate the facts underlying this particular allegation, failed to substantiate his claim. 99. For these reasons, this part of the application is declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded ...” 25 .     The Constitutional Court, however, examined the second applicant’s conditions of detention at the Adana Reception and Accommodation Centre (from 15 May 2014 to 23 August 2014 – see paragraphs 17-19 above), and mainly addressed his allegations on the restrictions imposed on outdoor exercise at the time. It first took note of the submissions made by the relevant authorities which mentioned a policy for providing daily outdoor exercise “as far as possible”. However, it ultimately observed a lack of specific and substantiated evidence demonstrating the actual frequency and duration of outdoor exercise afforded to detainees in practice. Referencing the standards of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of at least one hour of outdoor exercise daily, it found that the authorities’ failure to meet that minimum requirement rendered the second applicant’s conditions of detention sufficiently severe as to amount to treatment incompatible with human dignity. 26 .     Making reference to its established case-law, the Constitutional Court also found that no effective remedy existed for foreign nationals under administrative detention to complain about their conditions of detention, a deficiency which persisted both prior and subsequent to the enactment of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection (“Law no.   6458” – see paragraph 29 below). Observing no grounds to depart from that precedent, it found that the second applicant had also been denied the right to an effective remedy for complaining of his conditions of detention between 15 May and 23   August 2014. 27 .     With regard to the second applicant’s complaints concerning his deprivation of liberty, the Constitutional Court found several violations pertaining to the lawfulness and the procedural safeguards relating to his detention. Based on those violations, it awarded the second applicant the sum of 10,000 Turkish liras (equivalent to approximately 3,000 euros at the material time) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE         Domestic law AND PRACTICE 28.     A description of the relevant domestic law and practice prior to the entry into force of Law no. 6458 can be found in Abdolkhani and Karimnia v.   Turkey (no. 30471/08, §§ 31-43, 22 September 2009). 29 .     On 11 April 2014 Law no. 6458 entered into force. A detailed description of the provisions of that law governing the administrative detention of foreign nationals pending their removal and the judicial review of detention orders can be found in G.B. and Others v. Turkey (no.   4633/15, §§   44-45, 17 October 2019) and Yapuquan v. Türkiye ((dec.), nos.   70333/16 and 160/18, § 43, 20 September 2022). 30 .     As regards the procedure for individual applications before the Constitutional Court, Rule 60 § 2 of the Internal Regulations of that court provides that the application form must be legible and restricted to a concise statement of the substantive aspects of the claim. Where the application form – exclusive of its annexes – exceeds ten pages in length, it must be accompanied by a separate, condensed summary of the facts of the case. 31 .     On 13 July 2021 the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Türkiye (“the TİHEK”) – the national preventive mechanism registered under the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture – carried out an unannounced monitoring visit to the Kocaeli Gündoğdu Removal Centre. According to the subsequent report published on 4 January 2022 (no.   2022/04), this new facility officially commenced operations and began accommodating foreign nationals on 27 December 2017.       Case-law of the Constitutional Court    Constitutional Court decision dated 9 January 2014 32 .     In its decision in Veli Özdemir (no. 2013/276), the Constitutional Court clarified that, for the purposes of the individual application mechanism, it was incumbent upon applicants to substantiate their claims regarding the factual circumstances of their cases and to set forth their legal arguments concerning the alleged violations of constitutional provisions by submitting all relevant evidence. To that end, applicants were required to append to their individual application form a comprehensive account of the impugned acts or omissions, specifying the right or freedom relied on, the constitutional provisions relied on, the grounds for the alleged violation and all available relevant documentation. Under Law no. 6216 on the Establishment and Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court (“Law no.   6216”) and the Constitutional Court’s internal regulations, the court could request rectification or missing documents for formal deficiencies in an application. Those formal requirements were limited to application forms that were not duly filled out and missing documents or information specifically referenced within the application form itself. Furthermore, if applicants provided a convincing explanation as to why certain documents were not in their possession, the Constitutional Court could request those documents from the relevant authorities. Failure to comply with those requirements might lead to the application being declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.    Constitutional Court decision dated 30 November 2017 33 .     In its plenary decision in   B.T.   (no.   2014/15769), the Constitutional Court departed from its previous case-law. Under its former approach, the Constitutional Court had consistently held that an action for compensation before the administrative courts did not constitute an effective remedy for complaints concerning the conditions or lawfulness of administrative detention, as such actions were incapable of providing adequate redress or termination of the deprivation of liberty. However, in the B.T. judgment, it ruled that for applications lodged after a person’s release from a removal centre, an action for compensation brought in an administrative court in respect of the adverse material conditions of detention constituted an effective remedy that had to be exhausted prior to the lodging of an individual application with the Constitutional Court. Regarding complaints alleging the unlawful deprivation of a person’s liberty, the Constitutional Court held that seeking compensation in the administrative courts would similarly constitute an effective remedy – but only if a magistrate’s court had already found the administrative detention in question to be unlawful. 34 .     The Constitutional Court further elucidated that the above ‑ mentioned change of case-law in B.T. had been published in the Official Gazette on 16   February 2018 and that the complaints submitted to the Constitutional Court before that date but still pending on its docket would nevertheless be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust the compensatory remedy. However, should the applicants subsequently pursue this compensatory remedy after the Constitutional Court’s inadmissibility decision, the administrative courts must ensure that the application of time-limit rules for bringing the administrative actions does not prejudice the right of access to a court. THE LAW         ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs 3, 5 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST APPLICANT 35.     The first applicant complained that the conditions of his detention at the Sakarya police headquarters, the Kocaeli Removal Centre and the Adana Reception and Accommodation Centre had amounted to a breach of his right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, as provided for in Article   3 of the Convention. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he further complained that he did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of that violation. 36.     The first applicant also alleged violations under Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the Convention, complaining that his detention pending deportation had been unlawful, that he had not been promptly informed of the reasons for it, that he had had no effective remedy to challenge its lawfulness and that he lacked an enforceable right to compensation under domestic law for those breaches. 37.     The relevant provisions of the Convention read as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 5 “1.     Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (f)     the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2.     Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. ... 4.     Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5.     Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.” Article 13 “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”    Admissibility      The parties’ submissions    The Government’s objections 38.     The Government submitted that the first applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. 39 .     Firstly, the Government argued that the first applicant had provided misleading submissions concerning the material aspects of his complaints. They pointed out that the Constitutional Court had thus declared his individual application inadmissible on account of an abuse of the right of individual application (see paragraph 23 above), which is a ground for inadmissibility clearly provided for in Law no. 6216 (see paragraph 32 above) and the internal regulations of that court. They further observed that the first applicant had failed to provide the Constitutional Court with any explanation for the manifest discrepancies in his submissions. The Government contended that on account of that procedural deficiency, the first applicant had not properly exhausted the individual application remedy that had been available to him. 40 .     Secondly, the Government stated that the first applicant had failed to exhaust administrative remedies by omitting to bring an action for compensation ( tam yargı davası ) before the administrative courts. They observed that the first applicant had lodged his individual application with the Constitutional Court on 22 September 2014 (see paragraph 20 above), that is following his release on 23 August 2014 (see paragraph 19 above), without first having initiated the above-mentioned proceedings. In their submissions of 22 January 2019, the Government further relied on recent developments in domestic case-law to support that objection. The Government referred, in particular, to two decisions of the Constitutional Court of 30 November 2017 and 9 May 2018 ( B.T. , no. 2014/15769 – see paragraphs 33 and 34 above –, and D.D. , no. 2014/2427), in which that court had changed its case-law on the matter. They submitted that the Constitutional Court now held that for applications lodged after an individual’s release from administrative detention, an action for compensation before the administrative courts concerning adverse material conditions of detention constituted an effective remedy which had to be exhausted prior to the lodging of an individual application. The Constitutional Court further held that for complaints concerning the unlawfulness of the deprivation of liberty itself, such a claim for compensation was also considered an effective remedy, albeit only where a magistrate’s court had first established the unlawfulness of the detention in question. To demonstrate the practical effectiveness of that remedy, the Government cited a decision of the Istanbul Seventh Administrative Court of 9   May 2018, which had awarded compensation to a French national on account of her unlawful administrative detention in a removal centre between   15 and 24 June 2013.    The first applicant’s reply to those objections 41 .     The first applicant contested the Government’s arguments. 42 .     As regards the Government’s first objection alleging an abuse of the right of application (see paragraph 39 above), the first applicant argued that the discrepancy concerning the date on which his detention had started had resulted from an inadvertent error. He explained that he had confused the fourth and fifth months of the year (April and May) when making his submissions. He maintained that that mistake, which had resulted in his understating the total duration of his detention by one month, was incompatible with any intention to mislead the Constitutional Court. He argued that had that been his intention, he would have sought to exaggerate, not diminish, the length of the period in question. As for the allegedly contradictory reason given for his initial detention, he submitted that any inconsistency had arisen from his genuine confusion between the complex administrative procedures relating to his asylum claim and the distinct legal basis for his detention. He maintained that that error, like the one concerning the dates, had been inadvertent and could not be construed as an abuse of the right of application. Lastly, concerning the alleged discrepancy in respect of the time spent at the Sakarya police headquarters, the first applicant maintained that the specification of thirteen days had probably stemmed from a misunderstanding based on his exchanges with his lawyer. He submitted that that did not affect the consistency of the central tenets of his application, which concerned the lawfulness and conditions of his detention. In that connection, he stressed that the Constitutional Court had itself observed the authorities’ inability to specify his precise transfer date between detention facilities. 43 .     As regards the Government’s second objection (see paragraph   40 above), the first applicant argued that the compensatory remedy before the administrative courts lacked practical effectiveness. He highlighted that the singular favourable judgment issued by the Istanbul Seventh Administrative Court was intrinsically linked to the specific political climate prevailing at the time, notably the Gezi Park events, and was therefore unlikely to establish a precedent or be replicated in similar future cases. To the best of his knowledge, the administrative courts had consistently rejected actions for full compensation for damages in similar contexts. He additionally submitted that the Constitutional Court’s B.T. decision (see paragraphs 33 and 34 above) had deemed the theoretical availability of a full remedy action as sufficient, yet had disregarded its practical ineffectiveness. That judgment, he maintained, had led to the inadmissibility of hundreds of applications and had not, to date, resulted in a finding of a violation concerning the substance of similar complaints.      The Court’s assessment    The Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies 44 .     The general principles concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies are summarised in Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) v.   Switzerland [GC], no. 21881/20, §§   138-145, 27 November 2023. The Court reiterates, in particular, that Article 35 § 1 requires that the complaints intended to be made subsequently in Strasbourg should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used. Where an applicant has failed to comply with these requirements, his or her application should in principle be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies (see Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29   others, §   72, 25 March 2014 and the case-law cited therein). Nevertheless, Article   35 §   1 must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism. The rule of exhaustion is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically; in monitoring compliance with this rule, it is essential to have regard to the circumstances of the individual case ( see Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) , cited above, §   140). 45.     The Court has also found that the misuse of domestic remedies and the applicant’s conduct before the national authorities are relevant factors in assessing whether an application should be considered an abuse of the right of application. However, for behaviour to qualify as abuse, it must be intentional and this intention must be established with sufficient certainty (see, Ferrara and Others v. Italy (dec.) nos. 2394/22 and 18 others, §§   43-44, 16   May 2023, and Mamić and Others v. Croatia (dec.), nos.   21714/22 and 2   others, § 118, 9 July 2024, with further references). 46 .     Turning to the present case, and to the first part of the non-exhaustion plea, concerning the abusive character of the applicant’s complaint before the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 39 above), the Court observes at the outset that the procedural rules, as set out in Law no. 6216 and the internal regulations of the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 32 above), are evidently designed to ensure the proper administration of justice and compliance with the principle of legal certainty. Domestic courts must, in this context, be entitled to expect these rules to be complied with by those introducing cases before them (see, mutatis mutandis , Andrejeva v.   Latvia   [GC], no.   55707/00, § 99, ECHR 2009). While Article 35 § 1 of the Convention requires a degree of deference to domestic procedural formalities (see, for instance and amongst many other authorities, Craxi v.   Italy   (dec.), no.   34896/97, 11 October 2001), the interpretation and application of these rules should not be so formalistic and rigid as to bar the examination of complaints sufficiently raised in substance (compare, mutatis mutandis and within the ambit of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, Kurşun v.   Turkey , no.   22677/10, §   104, 30 October 2018). 47 .     In this connection, the Court observes that the Constitutional Court declared the first applicant’s application inadmissible as abusive, citing discrepancies between some of the facts submitted by the first applicant and those provided by the relevant authorities (see paragraph 23 above). The Court must therefore assess, whether these inconsistencies, standing alone, are sufficient to establish a deliberate intent on the part of the first applicant to mislead, and whether the domestic courts, in dismissing his case, exercised their discretion without undue formalism (see, mutatis mutandis , Gross v.   Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014, and Shelley v.   the   United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23800/06, 4 January 2008). 48 .     Firstly, the Constitutional Court observed a discrepancy concerning the first applicant’s initial date of detention. While it is affirmed that his detention commenced on 7 April 2014, and not 7 May 2014 as indicated in his individual application form, the Court finds no discernible reason whereby an understatement of the detention period would confer an advantage upon the first applicant or demonstrate an abusive intent. Secondly, the Constitutional Court also noted that the first applicant, despite being represented by a lawyer, had omitted to state the grounds for his administrative detention with sufficient detail. Nevertheless, the Court observes that the first applicant, in his individual application to the Constitutional Court, appears to have submitted all available documents in his possession and therefore fails to see how such a discrepancy regarding the background of his initial detention would constitute a deliberate abuse directly relevant to the essence of his complaints (see paragraph 21 above). Lastly, the Court notes that even the Constitutional Court itself faced challenges in pinpointing the precise dates while establishing some of the facts of the present case, yet it did not offer the applicant any opportunity to clarify or account for these inconsistencies (see paragraph 23 above) . 49 .     Having regard to the first applicant’s explanations and the overall context of the case, the Court considers that the first applicant cannot be reproached for the inconsistencies in question. While the information provided by the applicant to the Constitutional Court regarding the circumstances and timeline of his initial detention did not refer to the accurate dates, these discrepancies appear to be the result of a genuine confusion regarding dates and administrative procedures. Those inconsistencies, in any event, did not involve factual inaccuracies directly bearing on the substance of his complaints, nor has it been established that the applicant knowingly and willingly made false statements or submitted misleading information. The Court therefore considers the Constitutional Court’s approach to be unduly formalistic when read in the light of the circumstances of the case and the parties’ submissions as a whole. It follows that the applicant’s inaccuracies cannot lead the Court to the conclusion that he did not properly exhaust domestic remedies and that this part of the Government’s objection must be dismissed. 50 .     As to the second part of the non-exhaustion plea, concerning the first applicant’s failure to bring an action for compensation (see paragraph   40 above) the Court reiterates the general principles concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the lawfulness of a deprivation of liberty that has been terminated, as recently reaffirmed in Mansouri v.   Italy   ((dec.) [GC], no.   63386/16, § 84 ‑ 86, 29 April 2025). It also reiterates that Article   35   §   1 of the Convention provides for a distribution of the burden of proof and that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to clearly identify the means of redress to which the applicant failed to have recourse (see Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) , cited above, §   143, and, mutatis mutandis ,   Hajibeyli v. Azerbaija n , no.   16528/05, §   41, 10   July 2008). However, in the specific circumstances of the present case and for the reasons set out below, the Court does not consider it necessary to determine whether the compensatory remedy referred to in the Constitutional Court’s B.T. decision (see paragraphs 33 and 34   above) constituted an effective remedy that required exhaustion. 51.     The Court observes at the outset that the first applicant’s complaints concerning his deprivation of liberty and its conditions were lodged with the Constitutional Court after his detention had already ceased (see paragraphs   13 and 20 above, and compare Kunshugarov v. Türkiye , nos.   60811/15 and 54512/17, §§ 140 and 156, 14 January 2025). Be that as it may, at the time the Constitutional Court rendered its decision in the first applicant’s case on 22   September 2016 (see paragraph 22 above), its established case-law held that no effective remedies were available under domestic law which required exhaustion prior to the submission of an individual application concerning similar complaints. It was on this premise that the Constitutional Court proceeded to examine the merits of analogous complaints lodged by the second applicant, ultimately concluding that violations had occurred on account of the inadequate conditions and the unlawfulness of his detention, rather than declaring them inadmissible on grounds of non-exhaustion (see paragraphs   24-27 above). The Court further notes that, for the reasons explained by the Constitutional Court regarding the calculation of statutory time-limits (see paragraph 34 above and G.B. and Others v.   Turkey , no.   4633/15, § 37, 17 October 2019), the first applicant could not, at any point, have been afforded a realistic opportunity to institute an administrative action for compensation subsequent to the shift in case-law with the B.T. decision. This conclusion is further reinforced by the Government’s failure to provide a convincing explanation or to demonstrate a practice as to how the first applicant could have, following the Constitutional Court’s dismissal of his case, nevertheless effectively pursued an administrative remedy in the light of the new case-law. 52 .     The Court is therefore of the view that it would be unrealistic to expect the first applicant, especially in a case that has reached an advanced stage of proceedings, to resubmit his grievances with the lower courts, whether on the grounds of a new remedy or otherwise (compare, mutatis mutandis , D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, §§ 116-18, ECHR   2007 ‑ IV, and Burdov v.   Russia (no. 2) , no.   33509/04, § 144, ECHR   2009). 53 .     In these circumstances and without prejudice to a future assessment of the effectiveness of the administrative-law remedy referred to by the Constitutional Court, the second part of the Government’s objection concerning the non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies must likewise be dismissed.    Conclusion on admissibility 54 .     The Court notes that the complaints under examination are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.    Merits      Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention    The parties’ submissions       The first applicant 55.     The first applicant contended that the conditions of his detention at the Sakarya Police Headquarters, the Kocaeli Removal Centre and the Adana Reception and Accommodation Centre had been so inadequate that they had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. 56 .     The first applicant submitted that, during his three-day detention at the Sakarya police headquarters (14-17 April 2014 – see paragraph 9 above), he had been held in a locked room and denied access to fresh air. He further asserted that he had not had access to basic hygiene services such as showers or cleaning facilities, and had not been provided with a bed on which to sleep. Those conditions, in his view, had been poorer than those in a regular detention fa