CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } Published on 11 December 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 41995/21 Hasan ŞAHİNGÖZ against Türkiye lodged on 9 August 2021 communicated on 24 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 1995 the applicant was sentenced to death on charges of attempting to forcibly change the constitutional order under Article 146 of the former Criminal Code. This decision became final on 5 July 1996. In 2002, following the abolition of the death penalty, the Ankara Second State Security Court commuted the sentence to aggravated life imprisonment, without the possibility of release. The applicant’s conditions of detention were changed following the entry into force on 1 June 2005 of Law no. 5275 on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures (“ Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun” ). In this context the applicant, who had been occupying a three-person unit until then, was placed in an 8 m 2 individual unit at the Tekirdağ F-Type Prison (compare for the applicable legal provisions Öcalan v.   Turkey (no.   2) , nos. 24069/03 and 3 others, § 67, 18 March 2014). On 2 October 2020 the applicant made a request to the Tekirdağ First Enforcement Court for a modification of his conditions of detention. The court refused this request on the grounds that it had no legal basis. On 19   November 2020 the Tekirdağ First Assize Court rejected the applicant’s objection, holding that the decision at issue had been taken in accordance with the law and procedure. On 5 February 2021 the Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC) declared his application inadmissible without a comprehensive examination. The TCC’s decision was notified to the applicant’s lawyer on 15   February 2021. The applicant raises complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention arguing that the enforcement regime of aggravated life imprisonment was in breach of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment. In this connection, he maintains that the Turkish legislation does not provide for a review of the aggravated life sentence that was imposed. He further complains that his applications concerning the violations of his rights due to the change in his conditions of detention in the period following the commutation of his sentence were also rejected without reasoning. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the Court’s case-law on aggravated incompressible life imprisonment ( Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   66069/09 and 2 others, §§ 119-122, ECHR 2013 (extracts), Öcalan v.   Turkey (no. 2) , nos. 24069/03 and 3 others, §§ 193-207, 18 March 2014, Kaytan v. Turkey , no. 27422/05, §§ 60-68, 15 September 2015), does the fact that the applicant is deprived of any prospect of release and of any possibility of review of his sentence comply with the requirements of Article   3 of the Convention?   2.     What are the concrete conditions of detention in which the applicant finds himself? In particular, these conditions, comprising the time spent outside the individual unit, the duration of contact with other people (visitors or other detainees), social, cultural and sporting activities, the possibility of working, communication or correspondence with the outside world etc., do they comply with the requirements of Article 3 (see Öcalan , cited above, §§   79-149)?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal, as required by Articles 3 and   13 of the Convention, an effective domestic remedy through which he could have formulated his complaints of a breach of Article 3 as a result of the enforcement regime that was imposed on him after the entry into force of Law   no. 5275 on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures?