CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mars 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s28F5597F { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Communicated on 24 March 2014   SECOND SECTION Application no. 14344/13 Bakhtiyor ALIMOV against Turkey lodged on 14 February 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Bakhtiyor Alimov, is an Uzbekistan national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Gaziantep. He is represented before the Court by Mr   A.   Yılmaz and Ms S.N. Yılmaz, lawyers practising in Istanbul. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 2010 the applicant and his family left Uzbekistan due to the increasing pressure imposed on them on account of their religious beliefs and social class. The same year, they arrived in Turkey. Upon their arrival in Turkey, the applicant and his wife applied to the UNHCR for refugee status and began living in Gaziantep. The applicant’s wife was granted a temporary residence permit by the national authorities, whereas the applicant resided irregularly since he could not pay the amount required by the authorities. During their stay in Turkey the applicant’s wife fell ill and they had to go to Ukraine for her medical treatment. On an unspecified date in April   2011 they left for Ukraine. Before leaving, at the Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen Airport the applicant had to pay a fine for illegal residence and a notice was also served on him indicating that he was banned from entering Turkey for one year on account of his illegal stay there. On 4 May 2012 the applicant and his wife returned from Ukraine. The applicant was taken into custody at the Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen Airport as the police database revealed that he was not an admissible passenger due to the ban on his entering Turkey, imposed a year before. Between 4   May and 10 July 2012 the applicant was detained at the airport in a room of twenty square metres. The room was isolated from the outside world and received no natural light. There were five beds in the room and the number of occupants varied during his stay. At times there were 15-20 people detained in the room in question. The applicant was not allowed to leave the room. On an unspecified date the applicant applied for refugee status. On 9 July 2012 the applicant was temporarily admitted into the country upon an order of the Ministry of the Interior pending his application for asylum. On 10 July 2012 the applicant was transferred to the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre. He was detained in this centre until 15   August 2012. According to the applicant’s submissions, he was detained in unhygienic, unhealthy and overcrowded living conditions at the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre and outdoor exercise was not allowed. On 15 August 2012 the applicant was released and given a temporary residence permit to live in Gaziantep. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of detention at the Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen Airport and in the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 3, that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of his complaints regarding the conditions of his detention. The applicant alleges under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention between 4 May and 15 August 2012 was unlawful. The applicant contends under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention that he was not informed of the reasons for his detention. The applicant alleges under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that he was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised to exercise judicial power. The applicant maintains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy in Turkish domestic law whereby he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention. The applicant finally complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy capable of enforcing his right to compensation for the aforementioned violations of Article   5.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Is there a domestic remedy under Turkish law whereby the applicant could have complained about the conditions of detention at the Sabiha Gökçen Airport and the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre? If so, did the applicant exhaust all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 § 1 of the Convention?   The Government are invited to submit decisions by the administrative and judicial authorities in response to complaints regarding conditions of detention by detainees in comparable situations.   2.     Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention at Sabiha Gökçen Airport and at the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre compatible with Article   3 of the Convention?   The Government are invited to submit information, supporting documents and photos or video footage indicating the conditions of detention at the Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen Airport where the applicant was held and at the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre. The documents should demonstrate in particular the capacity of the rooms and the number of occupants held in them during the applicant’s stay, the opportunities for access to fresh air and daily exercise, and the hygiene conditions.   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant’s detention comply with the requirements of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention?   5.     Was the applicant informed promptly of the reasons for his detention, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention?   6.     Did the applicant have at his disposal a remedy by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty, as required by Article   5 § 4 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to submit judicial decisions in response to requests for release by detainees in comparable situations.   7.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article   5, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?