CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mars 2025

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } Published on 22 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 17526/20 Burhan YAZ against Türkiye and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 31 March 2025   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the material conditions of detention of the applicants during their police custody after the 15 July 2016 military coup attempt and the allegations of physical ill-treatment by the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants during that time. The first and second applicants, who are former judges, also complained of an allegedly unnecessary use of handcuffs as a measure of restraint in the courthouse in front of their former colleagues. The applicants submitted that, while in police custody, they had been held in different venues (see the appendix for the venues at issue) for periods ranging from one to nine days, in deplorable sanitary conditions. In particular, they had been deprived of food and water and had no sanitary facilities, and had been handcuffed in the back and forced to stand for long periods of time. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants also maintained that they had been beaten by the authorities. On various dates, they submitted criminal complaints to the public prosecutor’s office. The public prosecutor issued decisions not to prosecute any officers, stating that there was not sufficient evidence to bring a criminal case against them. The Constitutional Court found the applicants’ individual applications inadmissible, rejecting their complaints regarding the conditions of detention on account of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, and their complaints about the intentional acts of the authorities as manifestly ill-founded. The applicants complained of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment while in police custody, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§   81-90, ECHR   2015)?   The Government are invited to submit all the medical reports obtained in respect of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants during their custody.   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, were the investigations by the domestic authorities concerning the said applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment in police custody in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see   Bouyid , cited above, §§   114-23)?   3.     Were the first and second applicants subjected to degrading treatment on account of the use of handcuffs in front of their former colleagues in the courthouse, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Erdoğan Yağız v.   Turkey , no. 27473/02, §§ 32-48, 6 March 2007, and   Shlykov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 78638/11 and 3 others, §§   69-76, 19   January 2021 )?   4.     Did the material conditions of the custody of all applicants amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (see Muršić v.   Croatia [GC], no.   7334/13, §§ 136-40, 20 October 2016)?   The Government are invited to submit information and documents regarding the conditions of detention at the venues where the applicants were being held, in particular demonstrating:   -     the period, surface and capacity of the venues at issue and the number of detainees held; -     whether the applicants were kept handcuffed in custody; -     the number of toilets in the venues and any limitations regarding access to the toilets; -     the provision of food and water to the applicants in custody.   5.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints under Article   3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of detention while in police custody ( see İlerde and Others v. Türkiye , nos.   35614/19 and   10   others, §§   157-65, 5 December 2023)?   The Government are invited to provide information regarding any available and effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violation of Article   3 concerning conditions of detention in police custody. Considering the Constitutional Court’s decision in Nebahat Baysal Gül (no.   2016/14634, dated 28 May 2019), the Government are further invited to provide the Court with examples of domestic court decisions in which administrative courts examined the claims of violations of Article   3 regarding the conditions of detention.       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Facility 1. 17526/20 Yaz v. Türkiye 31/03/2020 Burhan YAZ 1968 Ankara Turkish Elif EKİCİ Ankara Security Headquarters 2. 17534/20 Toker v. Türkiye 01/04/2020 Ahmet TOKER 1969 Ankara Turkish Burak Burhan TOKER Ankara Security Headquarters 3. 45200/20 Akdeniz v.   Türkiye 02/10/2020 Yasin AKDENİZ 1976 Ankara Turkish Mahmut KAÇAN Başkent Sports Hall 4. 16244/21 Sakarya v.   Türkiye 26/02/2021 Emre SAKARYA 1989 Ankara Turkish - Football pitch at the Police Academy in Ankara and Sincan Prison Campus 5. 30936/21 Alpsoy v.   Türkiye 07/06/2021 İbrahim ALPSOY 1975 Ankara Turkish Emine Pınar TEKİNŞEN Başkent Sports Hall and Sincan Prison Campus 6. 19177/23 Mıngır v.   Türkiye 18/04/2023 İsmail MINGIR 1986 Ankara Turkish Ramazan MINGIR Başkent Sports Hall and Sincan Prison Campus