CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 février 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 17 February 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no 4222/17 Y. and Others against Turkey lodged on 13 January 2017 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are a couple and their minor children, currently awaiting the assessment of their request for international protection by the Turkish authorities. They are represented before the Court by Mr I. Ergin, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The first applicant alleged that, being persecuted for his political and religious beliefs, he left his country of origin and immigrated to another country together with his family. A few years later, the applicants were deported from that country for security reasons and, while in transit in Turkey, they lodged an application for international protection. The proceedings for international protection are still pending before the relevant Turkish authorities and the first applicant also lodged proceedings with the Turkish Constitutional Court to complain about his risk in case of removal to his country of origin, his deprivation of liberty and that of his family and their living conditions while in transit. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention that the conditions in which they are held in transit restrict significantly their privacy and amount to ill-treatment. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the first applicant also complains that if he were removed to his country of origin, he would face a serious risk of ill treatment, torture and even death. Relying on Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants complain that their deprivation of liberty has no legal basis in domestic law and that they do not have any remedy to challenge their detention. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants complain that they are not allowed to meet with their lawyer and that they have no available domestic remedy to appeal against prospective decisions concerning their asylum application and deportation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention?   2.     Is the first applicant currently under a threat of removal? If so, would he face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if he were to be deported? The Government is invited to submit information and relevant documents as regards the examination by the Turkish authorities of the applicants’ application for international protection.   3.     Have the applicants’ living conditions in transit been compatible with Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention? The Government is invited to submit information and supporting documents on the applicants’ living conditions including, inter alia, the applicants’ access to fresh air and natural light.   4.     Do the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention regarding the living conditions, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   5.     Are the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? If so, do the applicants’ detention comply with the requirements of Article   5 § 1 of the Convention?   6.     Do the applicants have at their disposal a domestic remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty, as required by Article   5 § 4 of the Convention?   7.     Do the applicants have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for their detention in alleged contravention of Article   5 §§   1 and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?