CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 février 2018

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 21 February 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 36449/17 Z.A. and K.S. against Turkey lodged on 17 April 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants, Mr Z.A. and Mr K.S. are Kirghizstan and Russian nationals, who were born in 1973 and 1988 and live in Bilecik and Yalova respectively. The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness and conditions of detention of the applicants in an immigration context. The applicants were held in detention in various establishments for periods of approximately five and four months respectively before being released on 23   August 2014. They subsequently applied to the Constitutional Court which rejected the first applicant’s application for abuse of right to individual application. In respect of the second applicant, the Constitutional Court found breach of the prohibition of degrading treatment, right to an effective remedy, and several limbs of the right to liberty and security. It however declared the second applicant’s complaints that his detention at the Yalova police headquarters had constituted a breach of the prohibition of ill ‑ treatment and that he had not had an effective remedy whereby he could have raised his allegation of ill-treatment. Before the Court, the first applicant alleges a breach of Article   3, Article   5 §§ 1, 2, 4 and 5, Article 13 and Article 17 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The second applicant alleges a violation of Articles 3, 13 and 17 of the Convention on account of his detention at the Yalova police headquarters. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the conditions of the first applicant’s detention at the Sakarya police headquarters, Kocaeli Foreigners’ Removal Centre and the Adana Foreigners’ Reception and Accommodation Centre compatible with Article   3 of the Convention?   2.     Were the conditions of the second applicant’s detention at the Yalova police headquarters compatible with Article   3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the first 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? In particular, (a)     Did he have any remedy at his disposal before applying to the Constitutional Court? (b)     Did the manner in which the Constitutional Court used the information and documents that it had requested from the Ministry of the Interior in examining the first applicant’s application comply with the guarantees required by Article 13 of the Convention? (c)     Did the examination conducted by the Constitutional Court with respect to the first applicant’s application comply with the guarantees required by Article 13 of the Convention?   4.     Did the second 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? In particular, (a)     Did he have any remedy at his disposal before applying to the Constitutional Court? (b)     Did the manner in which the Constitutional Court used the information and documents that it had requested from the Ministry of the Interior in its examination of the second applicant’s complaint under Article   3 concerning his detention at the Yalova police headquarters comply with the guarantees required by Article 13 of the Convention?   5.     Did the first applicant’s detention comply with the requirements of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention?   6.     Was the first applicant informed promptly of the reasons for his detention as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention?   7.     Did the first 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? In particular, (a)     Did the manner in which the Constitutional Court used the information and documents that it had requested from the Ministry of the Interior in the first applicant’s case comply with the guarantees required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? (b)     Did the examination conducted by the Constitutional Court with respect to the first applicant’s application comply with the guarantees required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   8.     Did the first applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?