CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 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 } .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 } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sD227234A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } Published on 12 January 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 33836/21 D.K. against Türkiye lodged on 23 June 2021 communicated on 17 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, an Uzbek national, fled Uzbekistan in 2009 due to the repression of political opponents. He initially fled with his family to Kazakhstan, where the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees granted them refugee status. In 2010, fearing removal by the Kazakh authorities to Uzbekistan, where he would face a risk of ill-treatment, he departed for Türkiye. The application primarily concerns the applicant’s deprivation of liberty, initially in police custody and subsequently in a removal centre, in the context of immigration detention, together with the allegedly inadequate conditions prevailing at those premises. On 29 July 2020 the applicant was placed in police custody at the Başakşehir police headquarters, for a period of seven days, on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation. On 4 August 2020 the Istanbul Governor’s Office ordered the applicant’s deportation pursuant to section   54(1)(d) of the Foreigners and International Protection Act (“Law no.   6458”), on the grounds that he posed a threat to public security. Concurrently, a decision was taken to place him in immigration detention. That same day, a medical examination was carried out, which concluded that the applicant’s state of health, characterised by chronic hepatitis C and decompensated cirrhosis, rendered him unsuitable for detention at the Binkılıç Removal Centre. He was nevertheless placed in administrative detention there. On 13 August 2020 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued by a decision of the Istanbul public prosecutor’s office. On numerous occasions, the applicant sought his release before the magistrates’ courts, but all of his requests were rejected. On 10   September 2020 he lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, along with a request for an interim measure to terminate his deprivation of liberty given his health condition. This request was dismissed on 17 September 2020. His application before the Constitutional Court was eventually declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded on 10 December 2020. This decision was notified to the applicant on 24 December 2020. On 23 September 2020 the applicant was released following the decision of the Istanbul 2nd Magistrate’s Court. On 29 March 2021 the deportation order against him was annulled by the Istanbul Administrative Court. The applicant complains under Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention of the alleged unlawfulness of his deprivation of liberty and the inadequate detention conditions he was subjected to at the Başakşehir police headquarters and the Binkılıç Removal Centre. He further complains that he did not have at his disposal any effective domestic remedies by which he could raise those complaints. Lastly, he contends that his detention did not comply with the safeguards provided for under Article 5 §§ 2 and 5 of the Convention.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Başakşehir Police Station and Binkılıç Removal Centre compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Yarashonen v. Turkey , no. 72710/11, §§   70-91, 24   June 2014; Erkenov v. Turkey , no. 18152/11, §§ 33-42, 6   September 2016; G.B. and Others v. Turkey , no. 4633/15, §§ 114-117, 17   October 2019)? 2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , G.B. and Others v. Turkey , cited above, §§ 125-138, and the cases cited therein)? 3.     Did the applicant’s detention comply with the requirements of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 164, ECHR 2009, and the cases cited therein)? In particular, Regarding the applicant’s complaint that he had been detained despite the absence of any official decision ordering his deprivation of liberty at the Başakşehir Police Station, has there been a violation of Article   5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention between 29 July and 4   August 2020? As regards the applicant’s complaint that he had been unlawfully detained despite medical evidence attesting to his unsuitability for detention at the Binkılıç Removal Centre, has there been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of his administrative detention at that facility for the period between 4 August and 23   September 2020? 4.     Was the applicant informed promptly of the reasons for his detention as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention (see, for example, Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 115, 15 December 2016)? 5.     Did the applicant have at his disposal a remedy by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty, as required by Article   5   §   4 of the Convention (see, for example, A.M. v. France , no.   56324/13, §§   40-41, 12 July 2016, and G.B. and Others v. Turkey , cited above, §§   163-188)? 6.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 §§ 1, 2   and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention ( see, for example, Vachev v.   Bulgaria , no. 42987/98, § 78, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts))?