CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 décembre 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 6 January 2025   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 39027/21 and 6979/22 Mehmet BARINER against Türkiye lodged on 30 July 2021 communicated on 17 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns two applications lodged by the same applicant regarding his classification as a dangerous prisoner by the prison administration and the specific detention regime applied to him as a result. By two decisions delivered in September 2017, the Sincan F-Type High Security Prison administration held that the applicant, who was detained on account of charges of membership of an illegal armed organisation (“FETÖ/PDY”), was a dangerous detainee. In view of the nature of the offence he was charged with and in order to provide for both his security and the security in the institution, he would be held under specific surveillance and control. It was decided accordingly that he would have access to the exercise yard for one hour in the morning, that the utmost attention be paid to prevent him from seeing other detainees when the authorities were obliged to take him out of his cell, that all required measures be taken when he was taken to the hospital or hearings, and that his rights regarding telephone calls, radio and television be restricted. The applicant’s objections to those decisions were rejected by the Ankara Batı enforcement judge, as they were found to be in compliance with the relevant provisions of Law no. 5275 on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures. Eventually, in 2020 the prison administration rejected the applicant’s request to have his classification reassessed, stating that the decision to classify the applicant as a dangerous prisoner had become final following the enforcement judge’s rejection of the applicant’s objections and that there was no need to deliver a new decision in that respect. The Constitutional Court found the two separate applications lodged by the applicant inadmissible, rejecting his complaints regarding his alleged solitary confinement as being manifestly ill-founded. The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the detention regime applied to him on account of his classification as a dangerous prisoner and his resulting alleged solitary confinement. He argues that he was kept in isolation for more than four years, without any contact with the other prisoners or access to social and sportive activities, that he was not provided with any reasoning as to his classification as a dangerous prisoner, and that there was no effective remedy whereby he could challenge that situation. He also raises complaints under Articles   5, 6, 10, 14 and 18 of the Convention regarding this detention regime. 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 under specific conditions because of his classification as a dangerous prisoner? In that connection, did the restrictions imposed on the applicant amount to solitary confinement in the form of total or relative social isolation (see Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no.   59450/00, §§   119-24, ECHR 2006 ‑ IX, and Öcalan v. Turkey (no.   2) , nos.   24069/03 and 3 others, §   104, 18   March 2014)?   2.     Was the applicant provided with adequate reasoning for his classification as a dangerous prisoner and the resulting detention regime applied by the Sincan H-Type Prison administration? Have there been subsequent decisions for the prolongation of the impugned measure (see Ramirez Sanchez , cited above, §§ 139 and 145, and Öcalan , cited above, §   105), and if so, was the applicant informed of those decisions?   Was the imposition of that 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 under a specific regime assessed when the decisions to impose and prolong that regime 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 the Sincan H-Type Prison (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 unit the applicant was held in during his detention in Sincan H-Type Prison (see Ramirez Sanchez , cited above, §§ 126-30, 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)?   6.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints regarding his status as a dangerous prisoner and the resulting detention regime, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 36925/10 and 5 others, §§   180 ‑ 91, 27 January 2015)?