CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 décembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Published on 19 January 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 20237/25 A.H. against Türkiye lodged on 10 June 2025 communicated on 16 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the order for applicant’s expulsion to a safe third country or his voluntary return to his country of origin. The applicant is a Syrian national who fled to Türkiye in 2014 with his family as a result of acts of indiscriminate violence. He was granted temporary protection in Türkiye. On 21 October 2017 the applicant was convicted by the Bilecik Assize Court and sentenced to seven years and six months imprisonment for membership of a terrorist organization, namely the PYD (a pro-Kurdish armed organization in Syria). He was released on conditional release on 7   June 2024. The same day, the Konya Governor’s Office issued a deportation order against him, citing subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the Foreigners and International Protection Act (Law no. 6458). The deportation order specified that the applicant could be deported to Malaysia, designated as a safe third country, or that he could voluntarily return to Syria. On 8   June 2024 the applicant was placed under administrative detention and transferred to the Oğuzeli Removal Centre in Gaziantep, where he currently remains detained. On 17 October 2024 the Konya Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal for the annulment of the deportation order. On 10   April 2025 his subsequent individual application was dismissed by the Constitutional Court as being manifestly ill-founded. The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed to conduct an adequate “safe third country” assessment, particularly concerning the risk of chain refoulement to Syria. He further alleges a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on the basis that his removal to Malaysia, a country with which he has no established ties, would disproportionately interfere with his established family and private life in Türkiye.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is the applicant currently under a threat of removal to Malaysia or Syria? If so, would this entail a real risk that he would be subjected to treatment in violation of Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], no. 47287/15, §§   139-150, 21   November 2019; J.K. and Others v. Sweden [GC], no. 59166/12, §   77 ‑ 123, 23   August 2016; S.H.H. v. the United Kingdom , no. 60367/10, §   69-95, 29   January 2013; and M.A. and Z.R. v. Cyprus , no. 39090/20, §§   90-96, 8   October 2024)? 2.     Did the domestic authorities’ decision to consider Malaysia as a “safe third country” and to order the applicant’s expulsion towards that country expose him to a real risk of being subjected to death or ill-treatment? In particular, did domestic authorities and courts conduct an adequate examination of the question whether Malaysia’s asylum procedure affords sufficient guarantees to avoid the applicant being arbitrarily removed, directly or indirectly, to his country of origin without a proper evaluation of the risks he faces from the standpoint of Article 2 and/or 3 of the Convention ( see, mutatis mutandis , Auad , cited above, §   133;   A.D. and Others v.   Turke y , no.   22681/09, §§ 91 and 103, 22 July 2014; and M.A. and Others v.   Bulgaria , no.   5115/18, §§ 68-84, 20 February 2020)? 3.     Would the implementation of the order to expel the applicant from Türkiye be in breach of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts conduct a balancing exercise between the legitimate aim pursued and the applicant’s right to respect for family life? (see Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 54-60, ECHR 2006-XII ; Makdoudi v.   Belgium , no.   12848/15, §§ 85-100, 18 February 2020; M.M. v.   Switzerland , no.   59006/18, § 54, 8 December 2020; and Alleleh and Others v.   Norway , no.   569/20, § 90, 23 June 2022)?   The parties are requested to submit a copy of all documents pertinent to the deportation, including any risk assessment conducted by the domestic authorities concerning the potential risks to the applicant upon removal to Malaysia.   In particular, the Government is requested to submit a copy of all documents relating to the scope and content of the safe third country assessment form dated 7 June 2024 and issued by the Directorate General of Migration Management.   The applicant is requested to submit all relevant documentary evidence and material substantiating the existence and nature of his established family and/or private life in Türkiye.