CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 novembre 2024

.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 } Published on 2 December 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 34526/20 Eşref KÖSE against Türkiye lodged on 14 July 2020 communicated on 14 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s alleged isolation during his detention. The applicant, who used to be a prosecutor, was detained on 21   July 2016 on account of charges of membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation / Parallel State Structure” ( Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması , hereinafter referred to as “FETÖ/PDY”). On 19   September 2016, as he was in Samsun E-Type prison, he was placed in an individual unit upon a decision of the prison administration which stated that his name had been listed in the letter sent by the Ministry of Justice’s Directorate General of Prisons (“Directorate General”) regarding the inmates to be placed in individual units. The said letter noted that certain measures should be taken for the security of the listed inmates who were detained on account of charges related to FETÖ/PDY. They should be placed in individual units and should not be brought together with other detainees. Moreover, the prison administration should assign special personnel to keep them under control 24   hours a day and their correspondence and meeting logs should be specifically monitored. The applicant’s objection to the decision of the prison administration was rejected by the enforcement judge who found that it was in accordance with law. In November 2016 the applicant was transferred to Bolu F-Type Prison where he was first placed in a three-person cell and later transferred to an individual unit, upon a decision of the prison administration, once again on the basis of a letter from the Directorate General to that effect and by virtue of Articles 111 (2), 113 (1), 115 (e) and 116 of Law no. 5275. The enforcement judge rejected the applicant’s objection, finding the measure lawful with reference to the relevant case-law of the Constitutional Court, as well as the Court’s decision in the case of Bora v. Turkey ((dec.), no.   30647/17, 28 November 2017). The enforcement judge considered that the situation did not constitute solitary confinement and that the applicant was not subject to the restrictions imposed on those placed in a cell on account of a disciplinary measure. He received visits and benefited from means of communication. Moreover, the measure was necessary and proportionate in view of the offence that he was charged with. In the meantime, the applicant’s requests to benefit from social and educational activities were rejected on account of the Directorate General’s letters stating that those charged with membership of FETÖ/PDY would not benefit from any social activities except for visits to psychologists. On 2 March 2020 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s individual application, in which he had complained of his alleged isolation which had begun in Samsun Prison and had continued in Bolu Prison, stressing its length and the physical conditions of detention in his cell, as being manifestly ill-founded without differentiating between the applicant’s time in Samsun and Bolu Prisons. At the time of lodging of the application, the applicant was still being held in the same cell. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention of his alleged solitary confinement, stressing its length and the physical conditions of detention in his cell. He claims that during his detention in Samsun prison between 19 September 2016 and 15 November 2016, he was allowed to leave his cell only for one hour per day without the company of any other inmate. He claims that his cell in Samsun prison did not have a light switch or a closed toilet and that he had to hit the iron bars to inform the guards of his need to go to the toilet. He further states that the prison guards were checking on him at frequent intervals during nighttime by turning the lights on. As for his detention in Bolu prison, he argues that he was not allowed to participate in sportive or cultural activities except for brief non-specified periods when he was allowed to exercise in isolation. He maintains that due to his alleged solitary confinement, his psychological condition started to deteriorate and that he receives medical treatment. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, due to his detention in an individual unit? In that connection, did the applicant’s detention in that unit constitute solitary confinement in the form of total or relative social isolation (see   Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, §§ 119-24 and   135, ECHR   2006-IX, and Öcalan v. Turkey (no. 2) , nos. 24069/03 and 3   others, §   104, 18   March 2014)?   2.     Did the authorities give substantive reasons for the imposition of the impugned detention regime, in particular, in view of the prison administrations’ decision relying on the decision of the Ministry of Justice’s Directorate General of Prisons? Did the prison administration have any discretion regarding the implementation of the measure following the letter of the Directorate General?   Have there been subsequent decisions for the prolongation of this measure, and if so, was the applicant informed of those decisions (see Ramirez Sanchez , cited above, §§ 139 and 145, and Öcalan , cited above, § 105)?   Was the imposition of this measure accompanied by procedural safeguards guaranteeing its proportionality and the applicant’s welfare? In particular, was the applicant’s physical and mental condition monitored and his physical or psychological capacity to deal with long-term detention in an individual unit assessed when the decisions to impose and prolong such a detention regime upon him were taken (see Ramirez Sanchez , cited above, §   139, and Schmidt and Šmigol v. Estonia , nos.   3501/20 and 2   others, §§   126 and 147, 28 November 2023)?   3.     What was the total duration of the applicant’s detention in an individual unit (see Öcalan , cited above, §§ 137-45, and Bora v. Turkey (dec.), no.   30647/17, §§ 24-6, 28 November 2017)?   4.     What were the physical conditions of detention in the individual units the applicant was held in in both the Samsun E-Type and Bolu F-Type prisons (see Ramirez Sanchez , cited above, §§ 126-130, and Öcalan , cited above, §§   110-15)?   5.     Was the applicant allowed ample opportunity to communicate with other persons and to have access to outdoor exercise or social activities (see Öcalan , cited above, §§ 116-26)?   In particular, was he allowed regular visits from his family and lawyer (see Ramirez Sanchez , cited above, §§ 131-35, and Öcalan , cited above, §§   127-35)?